/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16202649]

If you've read, lets discuss! Also any other political philosophy readings welcome

[Anonymous No.16202656]

go back to r*ddit

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16202660]

[Anonymous No.16203766]

I'm sorry anon, it's been so long since i read it that i can barely remember much specific about it. So i may some things that are completely off base or covered by Nozick.
According to Nozick, we're meant to believe that if the process of the ownership and transfer of material wealth is just, the outcome is just, assuming the lockean proviso was met initially (pattern vs end-state). But, I'm not entirely sure if justice is transitive in this way. Ignoring the fact that the lockean proviso was never met, it may still be possible that it will produce an unjust outcome (unless Nozick is just saying "Justice =df material distribution under the lockean proviso", which would be begging the question). For example, take Condorcet's paradox:
Say there are a group off voters with different preferences, and we want to select the group preference by relative preference. They place their votes in strict preference for the three choices:
>1: a>b>c
>2: b>c>a
>3: c>a>b
1 and 3 prefer a over b, 2:1, so a>b
1 and 2 prefer b over c, 2:1, so b>c
2 and 3 prefer c over a, 2:1, so c>a
as we can see, even if we want to select the fair outcome (the one which the majority voted for) we cannot. if we pick b, people who voted for a would complain; if a, people from c; if c, people from b. Even though the method is fair for a group preference (majority rules through voting), every outcome is necessarily unfair. This is quick and dirty so don't hang too much on it, i'm just not convinced that transitivity a property of morals or moral methodology.
As an aside, there is an interesting entailing thought about this rational choice/economic approach to distribution: the idea that in a perfect market (one where exchange is made under perfect knowledge, voluntarily, with no externalities) one can have no complaints about the outcome as it will be pareto optimal, even if the outcome is unequal. This hinging on the idea of initial endowments, which is what Nozick is giving with his Lockean proviso—if the initial endowments are just, the method of exchange just, then the outcome will be just. Then Nozick notes that previous distributions of wealth should be rectified if they weren't made under this proviso (which would entail practically uprooting the entirety of wealth in society). Taken in this way, i wonder if the champions of the perfect free market would support an initial complete redistribution of material wealth (ie. a "reset" of initial endowments (at least material endowments)) and then a complete free market with zero intervention, to create a kind of market utopia. ignoring the fact that a market with perfect information and zero externalities does not exist, if it did exist that would seem to be the way to create a perfect society, or a society where no one could complain about their lot. Which is odd, because it would require an initial act which is antithetical to the just method of the voluntary exchange.
Sorry i couldn't say much about Nozick, please forgive me.

[Anonymous No.16204220]

>>16202660
Have you started building your local association of democratic autonomous neighborhoods butterfly? You avoided me last time. What have you done to start working towards it?

[Anonymous No.16204663]

bump

[Anonymous No.16206374]

>>16202660
>democratic
OK
>autonomous
OK-ish
>neighbourhoods
WAT LUL.

Does not sound practical AT ALL.

[Anonymous No.16206384]

>>16204220
Dunno about her but I have been perfecting my gardening technique and I can now grow everything needed to make tasty salsa that will make almost anything palatable. Next on the list is beans so I can have protein and rice for carbs.

[Anonymous No.16207882]

bump

[Anonymous No.16207999]

>>16202660
Please give a tl;dr you lazy fuck. You constantly shill this book and don’t even have the stones to do a decent write up.

[Anonymous No.16208036]

>>16206384
Any books to rec for learning?

[Anonymous No.16208054]

Admit it. You are an anarchist because you want age of consent abolished.

[Anonymous No.16208117]

>>16202649
See "Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate" by Vallentyne & Steiner

[Anonymous No.16208529]

>>16208036
I actually don't. Maybe it's silly but I think the best way to learn something like this is just to decide what you want to grow and start. I feel like looking up the conditions you'll need to provide online will be as good as finding them in a book. Plus you can find video examples for things like repotting which a book can't do.

[Anonymous No.16209095]

>>16206384
>>16208529
based gardener anon

[Anonymous No.16209829]

>>16208054
Who are you talking to?

[Anonymous No.16209851]

>>16209829
My daughter.

[Anonymous No.16210010]

>>16209851
Butterfly is your daughter?

[Anonymous No.16210038]

>>16202649
Would you guys sign up for the experience machine?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16210224]

>>16206374
The old standby call is the best advice as always. We need to organize. Don’t like your neighbors? Meet them first. If you still don’t like them, move.

>>16207999
I’ve been working. Don’t call me lazy.
Hold meetings in smaller groups of up to 100 or 200. The author categorizes this as a “household” in a sort of classic sense. An apartment complex or castle sized household. Set agendas and such at this more intimate level.
The voting takes place in the neighborhood meetings of about 2000 to 4000. Here they decide on treaty wording and public works projects. Disbanding the police departments is a golden opportunity for these kinds of meetings to take charge of their neighborhoods and lives.

The book if short and to the point. He gives a rundown of all the tactics used to implement socialism thus far. I had just read Bookchin’s reasoning for why the Catalonian socialists failed, and he almost had me convinced, but Herod gets it right. We need not turn to Chomsky’s favored Rudolf Rocker Syndicalism, were just the workers organize, we need to get the whole neighborhood involved. Anarcho-communism, Bakuninism,

>>16208054
Age of consent laws wiped away, the family would still decide.

[Anonymous No.16210427]

>>16210038
No, but I'm not sure how it is meant to present a substantial rebuttal of utilitarianism.

[Anonymous No.16210790]

>>16203766
Based

[Anonymous No.16211628]

Are you still here OP?

[Anonymous No.16211650]

>>16210224
You'll fail, as you always do. Loser.

[Anonymous No.16211688]

I went for a walk in the Mount Auburn Cemetery today and happened across Nozick's grave.

[Anonymous No.16211807]

>>16211688
neat! have you ever laid a flower on an authors grave?

[Anonymous No.16212372]

>>16203766
What about inequalities that cannot be controlled for by pressing the reset button? Such as inequalities in talent? How are disabled people to be treated in this 'perfect' meritocracy?

[Anonymous No.16212383]

>>16210224
>Age of consent laws wiped away, the family would still decide.
Sounds super fair for people who happen to be born into backward asshole families.

[Anonymous No.16213034]

>>16212383
Shitty genes need to die, man can not stop natural selection

[Anonymous No.16213139]

>>16212372
This is an interesting part of rational choice theory. In a perfect market, every exchange is pareto optimal—that is, there is no exchange where both parties are not at their maximum marginal utility. There cannot be any exchange that reduces the marginal utility of anyone. This is because of the premises of the perfect market: perfectly rational, taken to mean that they will always make decisions in the pursuit of maximising their utility; perfectly knowledgeable, so they know all the relevant information regarding the respective value and bargaining position of each exchange; no externalities, so all exchanges will only effect the individuals it involves, no costs will be incurred or passed onto third parties; all exchanges are voluntary, so no individual will be forced to make an exchange if they don't want to. Taken together, this results in an actor who will only make exchanges which objectively maximize their utility, and will never be affected by other's exchanges (directly, anyway). Further, it is a system where there is no free-riding or parasitical exchange. So, necessarily, every exchange is pareto optimal because no rational actor would voluntarily conduct an exchange that was detrimental to them.
But of course, your outcome in this system depends entirely on your initial endowment; And, as you well pointed out—and i carefully worded to specify—not all of those endowments are material. But, the public choice theorist doesn't think this is a problem. Naturally, differences in natural endowment will allow some individuals to accrue comparatively larger amounts of material wealth than others. But, crucially, there is no possible situation where any individual will be worse off, not only from their initial position, but in any exchange they ever make; Even if they only gain 1% of what another gets from an exchange, they will always end up more than they had; they will always be at maximum marginal utility.
The classic rejoinder would be: What about situations where individuals have an absolute advantage in natural initial endowments over another and as such have no reason to engage in an exchange with them? in this situation, the fact that every exchange necessarily leaves one better off means nothing if an exchange never occurs, and particular members of this society are essentially excluded from the market due to their poor initial endowments. Anyone who has done ECON101 will recognize this problem (and that it isn't one)—comparative advantage! in this case, even the greatest endowed individual would exchange with a least for the purposes of freeing up (even the tiniest fraction, as perfect rationality requires) part of their own resources to put it to better use elsewhere. So everyone will still be better off; the hypothetical disabled man has something to gain and nothing to lose.
At least, that is how i imagine a rational choice guy would answer it. Sorry i rambled a bit.

[Anonymous No.16213210]

>>16210038
We're already in it.

[Anonymous No.16213347]

>>16213210
Then why is everything so shitty?

[Anonymous No.16213628]

>>16213347
Hey this is the life you choose. We don't judge. No refunds!

[Anonymous No.16214943]

is it pronounced nojik?

[Anonymous No.16215160]

>>16202649
I fucking hate this guy. He solved politics and now all I can think of when I want to argue a position is his stupid perfectly reasoned position. Nozick put devil's advocates out of work. You're not supposed to solve these problems. They're meant to remain up in the air so people like me can flaunt our intelligence by presenting contrarian views. Maybe I wanted to redistribute wealth for nonrational reasons? Did you every think of that? Asshole.

[Anonymous No.16215358]

>>16215160
You can just use "bump", OP.

[Anonymous No.16216430]

bump

[Anonymous No.16216843]

>>16214943
nose-ick

[Anonymous No.16216860]

>>16202649
i tried to listen to the audiobook, but the reader of it was this old man and he had the most boring voice.

[Anonymous No.16216937]

>>16213139
Thanks for your answer, I appreciate it. I don't see any solution to the problem of increasing inequality that would result from some gaining more than others as a result of the uneven playing field that the society began with.

[Anonymous No.16217151]

>>16216937
Yes, there would be inequality; that isn't solved. The idea is that looking at distributive justice in a way the privileges the end state (the relative distribution of goods in society) instead of the pattern (how it got to that state) is misguided, or so Nozick claims. Inequality is okay if it was reached through just interaction. And, presumably this inequality would therefore be just, which is the claim i was picking at in my original post.
I think the general point is that if every exchange is voluntary and beneficial, it doesn't matter if the end state is unequal.
>it's not a bug, it's a feature
as the saying goes.

[Anonymous No.16217654]

>>16212383
If there are backwards asshole families then anarchism is going to have difficult getting off the ground to begin with.

[Anonymous No.16217828]

>>16210224
I too would like to live in an Ancient Greek citystate, but I don't think that an Athens or a Sparta or a Corinth would be all that great for you, Butterfly. Maybe Thebes or Thespiae would be more accommodating though.

[Anonymous No.16218465]

>>16202660
>>16210224
>The book if short and to the point. He gives a rundown of all the tactics used to implement socialism thus far
That actually sounds interesting. Thanks butterfly.

[Anonymous No.16218942]

>>16218465
it's the fake butterfly don't trust her

[Anonymous No.16219209]

>>16218942
looks like the right trip to me.

[Anonymous No.16220084]

bump